Drivers imprisoned in their own cars

Originally published: February 6, 2009

SMALL

MEDIUM

LARGE

I don’t know when it was exactly. It may have been the arrival of the Duesenberg SJ in 1932. Or perhaps it was even earlier, say when Rolls-Royce introduced the Silver Ghost. But, regardless of the exact day, month or year, at some point in time, the car stopped being simply a means of transportation.

From those early years of merely replacing the horse, the automobile has crept even deeper into our social fabric. When cars were still rare, they started becoming status symbols. Owning an early McLaughlin Buick meant you were either very modern or very rich or, more often than not, both.

When cars became more common, the hedonism that marked those early Duesenbergs, Bugattis and Cords separated the rich from the Ford-driving proletariat. When cars became plentiful, a driver’s licence became the ubiquitous — or at least most overt — sign of post-pubescence.

But, most of all, a car became the ultimate symbol of freedom. Owning a car meant having the wherewithal to go where you wanted, when you wanted and how you wanted. The only limitation was the ability to pay for gasoline. Oh, there were rules, some basic speed limits (which, considering automotive technology of the day, actually made sense), and it helped if you obeyed stop signs at intersections because, unlike two horses coming together at a trot, two speeding automobiles colliding could cause serious damage.

Over the years, more rules and regulations were implemented. Most were well thought out, though they faced their share of doubters. Some, for instance, objected to the implementation of mandatory seat belt usage on the basis of infringement of freedoms — though it would have been difficult, even in the day, to see it as anything other than the freedom to get ejected through the windshield.

What I’m saying is that many of the laws we see as beneficial today faced some controversy upon their initial implementation.

However — and you knew this was coming — we have now passed a point of no return from which that proverbial slope gets slipperier. A law has just been passed prohibiting smoking with the kids in the car and, although I happen to appreciate people’s concerns for other people’s children, we are a far cry from the universal condemnation of smoking in the workplace. Indeed, the ban that started in the workplace was quickly extended to public bars (where, surely, all patrons are worried for their health), then public parks (and just how do you breathe in second-hand smoke there?) and now cars. It’s not a huge hop, skip and a jump to banning smoking in your own car when you’re the only person inside.

That slope not slippery enough for you? Consider the pronouncements of Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Julian Fantino over the past two years. Never mind that there have always been careless driving laws. Never mind that the impetus for the revised speeding laws is that police can’t be bothered proving a time-consuming subjective case. Deeming 50-plus kilometres an hour over the speed limit as “racing” is just an easier method of getting convictions for something that has absolutely nothing to do with speed contests.

That wasn’t enough.

Fantino subsequently lamented not asking for more draconian limits, wishing for a 130-km/h infraction point. This means, at least by my anecdotal evidence, that virtually all Ontarians, save a few conscientious Prius owners, would be guilty of racing. Now Mr. Law and Order wants a law whereby a police officer can charge a motorist who has had a single-car accident during inclement weather conditions on the basis that he must have exceeded a safe speed for the automobile to have gone awry.

Still not slippery enough?

Hand-held cellphones are either banned or under scrutiny in many jurisdictions including our own. It’s probably a good measure since dialling or texting is too much of a distraction when behind the wheel. The safer solution suggested has always been Bluetooth hands-free communication so that we can simultaneously talk and drive.

Now comes word that the American National Safety Council wants to completely ban cellphones, even hands-free devices. A recent University of Utah study claims that hands-free phones are not safer and they should be banned as well. So, conversing without averting one’s eyes is distracting? How long is it before some well-intentioned safety nanny decides that even the distraction of talking to a passenger is unsafe? Or that we shouldn’t be allowed to drive with our arm out the window? Or that reaching for our morning latte is too much of a distraction?

My suspicion is that what was once a sign of personal freedom is quickly becoming a beacon of politically correct slavery.